tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post4541692822537631452..comments2015-01-15T07:48:21.276-05:00Comments on John Gorman's Media Blog: Radio: Fumbles, Yourrrrrr OUT!John Gormanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15246404080972884401noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-14522875978250158542009-05-14T16:15:00.000-04:002009-05-14T16:15:00.000-04:00May you all eat-a-sweeter-peter!
Regards, FredMay you all eat-a-sweeter-peter!<br /><br />Regards, FredAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-80812064446779988022009-05-12T10:02:00.000-04:002009-05-12T10:02:00.000-04:00Anonymous said... "You're not a self-proclaimed AN...Anonymous said... "You're not a self-proclaimed ANYTHING if you actually do it, doofus. Even if you do something poorly, you're doing it. In terms of slander you're right - impossible to prove. Disinformation? Definitely happening. Total BS? Definitely happening. People making things up? Definitely happening."<br /><br />Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?<br /><br />Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.<br /><br />A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet. <br /><br />Who is a public figure?<br /><br />A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures—a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate—someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure—for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.<br /><br />http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation<br /><br />Now, shut the fuck up Fred! It is almost impossible for public figures to prove slander and libel. Same old tired threats of legal action to shut us up!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-16937910042123732552009-05-12T09:22:00.000-04:002009-05-12T09:22:00.000-04:00Fred hates to be anonymous. Sometimes he has to b...Fred hates to be anonymous. Sometimes he has to be. I think he should worry about the more pressing problems at hand. The next NAB CEO may see right through him. He is pretty damn transparent after all. If he is not getting his every other day in the trades and online exposure he will just wither. Do we really need a "major research study" from Fred to tell us that Facebook is more popular with adults than My Space? Get real.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-44588455820646187872009-05-12T09:15:00.000-04:002009-05-12T09:15:00.000-04:00Gee - Excuse ME - but who else just posted an anon...Gee - Excuse ME - but who else just posted an anonymous comment!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-46807226204824243892009-05-12T08:57:00.000-04:002009-05-12T08:57:00.000-04:00You're not a self-proclaimed ANYTHING if you actua...You're not a self-proclaimed ANYTHING if you actually do it, doofus. Even if you do something poorly, you're doing it. In terms of slander you're right - impossible to prove. Disinformation? Definitely happening. Total BS? Definitely happening. People making things up? Definitely happening. Case in point -- if ANYONE in here can say they actually saw Fred Jacobs crying at the announcement, then please raise your hand and announce yourself. People in here are more than willing to take shots at things they know little or nothing about (no one, by the way, is arguing about David Rehr's effectiveness or lack thereof)and yet are totally unwilling to commit their name to their bs statements. If you have the "guts" to trash someone's reputation then what is it you are afraid of? And before you ask why I don't identify myself well, I'm not trashing anyone by name am I, nor am I lobbing inane statements about things I know nothing about. Try sticking to factual information in here not personal grudges -- save that discussion the next time you talk to the person at the unemployment office, your shrink, or your mom. Maybe she can still handle your whining about how other people have screwed things up and and it's no YOU, it's everyone else that's causing problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-23173297773018915432009-05-08T16:06:00.000-04:002009-05-08T16:06:00.000-04:00To Fred Jacobs and all the Gorman doubters out the...To Fred Jacobs and all the Gorman doubters out there. If you thought Gorman was only kidding about David Rehr, here is another viewpoint from today's TV Newsday which corroborates Gorman's many comments and reports about the way David Rehr handled his chairmanship at the NAB. Read it and go back and read what Gorman wrote about Rehr and tell me where he "slandered" anyone. For those of you who criticized Gorman about Rehr's reignation being forced, read this, too :<br /><br />It's Do-Over Time At The NAB<br />By Harry A. Jessell<br />TVNEWSDAY, May 8 2009, 3:10 PM ET<br />With broadcasting suffering through the worse economic times in its history and Washington threatening even more trouble, its principal lobby is suddenly without a leader.<br /><br />On Wednesday, David Rehr resigned as NAB president after being told that he no longer enjoyed the confidence of the board. The announcement brought to an abrupt end to Rehr's tumultuous three-plus years in the $800,000-a-year job.<br /><br />While the board scrambles to find a replacement, Janet McGregor, NAB's chief operating officer and CFO, who joined the NAB just last year, will run the place.<br /><br />McGregor might be an excellent administrator, but she is no lobbyist. She cannot do what the NAB president should be able to do -- make things happen on Capitol Hill and at the FCC.<br /><br />That's unfortunate because things are getting a little dicey in Washington right now.<br /><br />Congress is weighing one measure that could seriously undermine the ability of TV stations to negotiate for retrans fees from cable operators and another that could force radio stations to pay hefty music royalties to record labels for the first time. Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.<br /><br />Meanwhile, there are rumors that Michael Copps wants to make his mark as interim FCC chairman by rushing through new local programming requirements on TV stations before the Senate confirms Julius Genachowski as the new permanent chairman.<br /><br />What went wrong?<br /><br />To be president and lobbyist-in-chief of the NAB, you have to have good personal relationships with the handful of lawmakers and regulators that govern TV and radio: the chairmen and senior minority members of the congressional committees that oversee communications policy and the five FCC commissioners.<br /><br />If possible, you also want some close contacts in the House and Senate leadership and at the White House.<br /><br />You need such relationships so that you are always assured a place in the room when policy is being developed and when the deal-making begins.<br /><br />The word on David Rehr around Washington was that even after three years he didn't have the relationships he needed and that, more than anything else, led to his forced resignation.<br /><br />"His style was not one that I was comfortable with," Russ Withers, a former NAB radio board chairman and longtime Rehr critic told TVNewsday Correspondent Kim McAvoy. "Washington is not a pen pal town. It is a personal relationship town. I don't think David ever got that."<br /><br />Others, unwilling to go on the record, agree, and it's perplexing. Rehr is hardworking, smart, open and engaging. But somehow he couldn't apply those attributes to befriending politicians or repairing damaged relationships.<br /><br />It does take an extraordinary commitment. The most successful lobbyists live the job. They are on 24/7. Their professional and social lives are one. They look for every possible opportunity to spend quality time with the policymakers -- whether that's in their offices or at fundraisers, receptions, black ties, weekend BBQs, duck hunts, whatever. They show up early and leave late.<br /><br />Woody Allen once said 80 percent of success is showing up. That's particularly true in Washington.<br /><br />Perhaps Rehr felt he could delegate the chief lobbyist's job. If so, he had to make sure he had strong lieutenants. For much of his tenure, he did not.<br /><br />Until July 2007, Doug Wiley was Rehr's point man on the Hill and until December 2008 Marsha McBride was the designated rep at the FCC.<br /><br />Neither proved effective. In fact, I'm told that McBride had somehow antagonized FCC Chairman Kevin Martin when she worked at the FCC and that she could barely get an audience with him. Both Wiley and McBride were eventually shown the door.<br /><br />Rehr belongs to the wrong party. He is a Republican in an increasingly Democratic Washington world and not just any Republican. While running the National Beer Wholesalers Association prior to joining NAB, he built his reputation on Capitol Hill as an ally of then House Majority Leader Tom Delay, a virulently partisan Republican who is remembered bitterly by the people now running things.<br /><br />Rehr could have overcome the Delay ties by endearing himself to the Democrats as they took charge. But, as I said, it just wasn't in him.<br /><br />Other Rehr critics say that he was sometimes politically tone deaf, distracted by costly logos and other cosmetics and obsessed with the notion that you could turn around a political contest by changing the language of the debate. Just call it "anti-stripping" rather than "must carry."<br /><br />If 80 percent of political success is showing up, the other 20 percent must be money.<br /><br />Rehr came in promising to spread more money around on Capitol Hill. He did boost PAC spending by 20 percent, but I doubt that it was enough to make a material difference. And, needless to say, writing checks is a dubious strategy for an industry that's supposed to be a watchdog on that kind of thing.<br /><br />The other complaint I've heard about Rehr is that he wasn't good at rallying the other broadcast lobbyists and lawyers in Washington around a cause on either a regular or an ad hoc basis. By failing to do so, he often went into battle without all his weapons.<br /><br />The consequences of all this is that the Rehr NAB was not been the lobbying force it should have been. It suffered some big losses, failing to block the XM-Sirius merger to the detriment of radio and the FCC's white spaces initiative to the detriment of TV.<br /><br />It also watched as the Martin FCC turned on broadcasting, mandating DTV awareness PSAs, imposing a rigorous quarterly programming disclosure regime and launching a rulemaking that may result in local programming quotas and stiff ascertainment requirements.<br /><br />The best you can say is that it might have been worse without the NAB's engagement.<br /><br />And the Rehr NAB was all defense, no offense. TV broadcasters wanted multicast must-carry and some relief on local ownership restrictions. Such benefits were beyond the NAB's means to deliver.<br /><br />For the record, Rehr's years were not a total bust. He was a good spokesman for the industry. Last month, I saw him give a convincing speech before financial types in New York in which he argued that broadcasting was not only in fine shape, but on the verge of a renaissance.<br /><br />Significantly, Rehr championed efforts to bring about that renaissance, pushing for FM receivers in cell phones and funding development of the mobile DTV standard.<br /><br />And he will also be remembered for the NAB's DTV awareness campaign. Nobody can say that the broadcasters didn't do their part in easing millions of America from analog to digital.<br /><br />Who's to blame?<br /><br />Rehr himself, of course. He's a big boy who was pulling a big salary.<br /><br />But you can also point to the Television Operators Caucus, the clique of major TV station group executives that places its members in key positions on the NAB board and exercises undue control over the association.<br /><br />It was the TOC that chased away Eddie Fritts in 2005, despite his 22 years of experience as NAB president and the kinds of political connections that still makes him an effective hired-gun lobbyist today. That he is a Republican hardly makes a difference.<br /><br />The TOC thought the broadcast networks were the enemy and that Fritts was too close to the networks. In truth, the broadcasters' enemies then and now are cable and overzealous regulators.<br /><br />And the TOC that was instrumental in hiring Rehr in October 2005, even though his patron, Tom Delay, had already been indicted on ethics charges and clearly was on his way out of Washington.<br /><br />The TOC can't be faulted completely for its role in hiring Rehr. He had a solid resume and clippings and made a great first impression. Other than the Delay connection, he had no obvious liabilities.<br /><br />And remember, at the time of the hire, Rehr's political background was an asset. Republican power in Washington was still near its zenith.<br /><br />Ironically, it was also the TOC that started to movement to oust him. According to our reporting this week, TOC put him on double-secret probation last fall after concluding that he didn't have the personal clout he needed and that it was only going to get worse with Obama on his way in and more liberal Democrats taking over Congress.<br /><br />As we reported earlier this week, TOC members reportedly met informally with at least two Washington insiders over the last few months to gauge their interest in the job. One of them, we believe, was Antoinette Cook Bush, a well-respected Democratic lawyer/lobbyist with a Hill background. She apparently wasn't interested. (Bush could not be reached for comment.)<br /><br />Rehr must have been aware of the TOC's displeasure and of its efforts to find a replacement, which couldn't have helped his confidence or motivation. And to the extent that others were, they made him a lame duck and undermined his ability to function in Washington.<br /><br />What now?<br /><br />The NAB board has appointed past joint board chairman Bruce Reese to head a search committee, but that's rather discouraging news when you think about it. It confirms that the board has no one in the wings and that the NAB will have to muddle through for several months while the committee finds, vets and hires a new boss.<br /><br />The search committee will have no lack of applicants. Despite its diminishing clout, the NAB is still a prestige job that comes with a lot of money. The job will culminate a career for somebody.<br /><br />The NAB could turn to Marty Franks, the longtime CBS executive. He's a Democrat, he's politically savvy and connected in ways that Rehr could only dream about. He wanted the job in 2005, but, having been rejected then, he may no longer be interested. I'd give him a call.<br /><br />Another possibility is Steve Newberry, a radio broadcaster in Kentucky who is in line to be the next joint board chairman of the NAB later this year. He's a Democrat who likes politics. Last year, he ran unsuccessfully for the state senate and his brother, Jim, is mayor of Lexington, Ky.<br /><br />In fact, as incoming joint board chairman, Newberry could play a large role in running the NAB until a new president is named.<br /><br />During the interregnum, NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton says not to worry.<br /><br />Rehr is leaving behind solid professionals to rep the NAB on Capitol Hill and at the FCC, Laurie Knight and Jane Mago, the successors to Wiley and McBride.<br /><br />Plus, he points out, much of NAB's clout has always come from the "grassroots" -- individual broadcasters working in their congressional districts and active state broadcast association. "We're confident that NAB will be successful."<br /><br />So, the NAB gets a do-over.<br /><br />Having learned from the Rehr experience, the search committee can look over the field and find that someone who, regardless of party, can build relationship with those handful of key players, plot political strategy and rally the industry when needed.<br /><br />Here's hoping that it comes up with a strong individual with enough confidence and know how to lead the board rather than be led by it as Rehr was.<br /><br />It can be done, but there are skeptics.<br /><br />Says Tribune lobbyist Shaun Sheehan: "If the search committee is the same crowd that ran off Eddie ... and replaced him with a second-tier operative as they did the last time, a difficult job becomes almost impossible."Daniel Fowlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-27964148128789553222009-05-08T15:53:00.000-04:002009-05-08T15:53:00.000-04:00Right said, Fred.
If a self proclaimed researcher...Right said, Fred.<br /><br />If a self proclaimed researcher, consultant and self proclaimed "creator" of such formats as classic rock, alternative and AAA sobs uncontrollably to the news of David Rehr's departure from the NAB does anyone really care whether he makes a noise or not? <br /><br />I don't know what Fred is trying to prove here although there is no problem in showing him how his "research" should always be in quotations (you know what I mean, F) and that there were classic rock, alternative and AAA formats long before he was wearing that stupid beret he used to don in Detroit to "look cool" and started his "consultantcy", quotations again on purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-74417465884959606122009-05-08T15:42:00.000-04:002009-05-08T15:42:00.000-04:00BTW - proving slander and liable are far harder fo...BTW - proving slander and liable are far harder for ublic figures - they are held to a different standard. Stop the whining, idiot!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-26200654699725966082009-05-08T15:41:00.000-04:002009-05-08T15:41:00.000-04:00"Profanity is fine.............slander is another ..."Profanity is fine.............slander is another story."<br /><br />What slander - point it out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-9665241982311486362009-05-08T13:40:00.000-04:002009-05-08T13:40:00.000-04:00I would be inclined to say that more people are aw...I would be inclined to say that more people are aware of and read this blog than there are those who are aware of "Radio Heard Here". I am in the business and DO know about it and it is the biggest joke you could imagine. Think about it. Just take the slogan. It will make a unique case study in how not to launch a campaign. No wonder they sent David Rehr packing. Gorman was right. He and his cohorts cannot do anything right. Anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-72325607860618937242009-05-08T13:11:00.000-04:002009-05-08T13:11:00.000-04:00I'm in the biz and I've never heard of "Radio Hear...I'm in the biz and I've never heard of "Radio Heard Here"...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-10511742232594559632009-05-08T11:55:00.000-04:002009-05-08T11:55:00.000-04:00Profanity is fine.............slander is another s...Profanity is fine.............slander is another story. The good news is that there's probably only 14 different people who read this blog anyway. If a media consultant and talent coach falls in the forest does anyone hear it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-11132486426735040002009-05-08T09:36:00.000-04:002009-05-08T09:36:00.000-04:00Well, I'm glad the David Rehr haters are happy. Th...Well, I'm glad the David Rehr haters are happy. The man is gone. Now what?<br /><br />Radio and television are dying, consolidating industries. No one can give them the influence they want in DC anymore because they don't have any clout in the real world any more. The business is irrelevant today.<br /><br />Talk to some oldtimers, guys who built their stations from nothing. They get it. And that's why mostly they're gone. You'll see a couple of them at the NAB radio show, and they'll tell you they ain't in it for the money any more. They just love the business too much to quit, and they're too old to want to try something new. So they'll ride this horse til it drops and enjoy whatever time it has left.<br /><br />The world changes folks. 20 years ago, tobacco had the government in a hammer lock. Everyone loved their product and so the government couldn't mess with the industry. Today, the customers are gone, and so is the industry's clout. Its products are taxed beyond measure and it is about to be regulated out of existence. Radio and TV are facing the same future. White spaces? Satellite? Must carry? No one listens to the industry any more.<br /><br />And the fact is, the NAB would be gone too if it weren't for the fact that its tradeshow is a cash cow that will not die. But 90% of the people who attend NAB every year have nothing to do with the broadcast industry. That money machine that rolls into Vegas every year makes the association appear far more powerful and vibrant than it actually is. If the association were reliant on industry for its lifeblood, it would be as dead as the broadcast business itself.<br /><br />Reality check folks: Time to stop trying to breathe life back into the corpse of broadcast radio and television. Embrace the new communications models and get on with life. Forget the broadcast dinosaurs. They're done. And the longer you stay in denial, the more of your career you're wasting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-80031459078871505272009-05-07T21:31:00.000-04:002009-05-07T21:31:00.000-04:00We realy need to get rid of Bob Struble and his ga...We realy need to get rid of Bob Struble and his gang of cohorts - that would be a start.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-85943919074795210852009-05-07T21:01:00.000-04:002009-05-07T21:01:00.000-04:00Please bring back sanity to our business. Getting...Please bring back sanity to our business. Getting rid of Rehr is a start. So many left to go. If they can't service their debt they should not own radio stations. We need a new beginning and we need it now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-4859508204637039342009-05-07T18:57:00.000-04:002009-05-07T18:57:00.000-04:00Fuckin' A, Bubba!Fuckin' A, Bubba!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-91035186766873896382009-05-07T18:45:00.000-04:002009-05-07T18:45:00.000-04:00Some of the geezers, John, can't handle the fact t...Some of the geezers, John, can't handle the fact that you called this one in the first inning. The seem to be a little snippy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-42569306437963595992009-05-07T14:36:00.000-04:002009-05-07T14:36:00.000-04:00Maybe someone can answer this. I believe there wa...Maybe someone can answer this. I believe there was a time when the NAB represented only television and a separate organization, the National Association of Radio Broadcasters did radio. <br /><br />It appears that the NAB cannot satisfy the needs of both radio and television and surprisingly from what I have read and heard today, the TV industry had more complaints about David Rehr than radio did!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-78811775097925130792009-05-07T14:24:00.000-04:002009-05-07T14:24:00.000-04:00Anonymous said... "I never bothered to read the co...Anonymous said... "I never bothered to read the comments before. Could I make a suggestion. profanity is not needed. It weakens the argument. There are some very valid points made here by some while othes use the comments as an opportunity to character assassinate.Solutions, not problems."<br /><br />To Mr. High-and-Mighty, who are you to pass judgement? And, who's arguing, and who cares? This is just a blog comment block, and isn't meant to change anyones' minds. Bloggers have the right to use profanity, so screw-off!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-67575947398541766622009-05-07T13:26:00.000-04:002009-05-07T13:26:00.000-04:00There is NO WAY David Fumbles Rehr resigned on his...There is NO WAY David Fumbles Rehr resigned on his own. John you have it right. He was pushed out. Maybe the timing of the board was not the best since it should have been done months ago, it is still better to have him gone than inflicting more damage on an already crumbling radio industry.<br /><br />We need to turn this industry around quickly and the ONLY way it can be done is to put a BROADCASTER in the position. By BROADCASTER I mean someone who was one before deregulation turned radio into a buy sell-mish mash mush. <br /><br />Get a visionary. One who knows where were were, where we are and MOST IMPORTANTLY where we are going. The current crop at the NAB Board proves they don't know but at least they have taken the first step by getting rid of Rehr.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-19701000432041756402009-05-07T13:09:00.000-04:002009-05-07T13:09:00.000-04:00The streaming audio deal that David Rehr cut for r...The streaming audio deal that David Rehr cut for radio with the RIAA/Sound Exchange - is that a done deal? It needs to be renegotiated. Radio should not have to pay. I understand the argument. Gorman spelled it out about retail sales. More and more music is being bought on line and radio either terrestrial or streaming continues to expose new music and for that matter catalog music for the labels, too. Why should radio have to pay? I agree with Gorman that the formula radio created after World War II is the same when Google and others are using when referencing content that does not belong to them. Why don't the record labels understand that this is beneficial to them. Regarding the years of payola. Those people are gone (I hope). Look forward, not backward. Can't we have a better dialog here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-37342005884550486552009-05-07T12:51:00.000-04:002009-05-07T12:51:00.000-04:00I never bothered to read the comments before. Coul...I never bothered to read the comments before. Could I make a suggestion. profanity is not needed. It weakens the argument. <br /><br />There are some very valid points made here by some while othes use the comments as an opportunity to character assassinate.<br /><br />Solutions, not problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-47730907973045888182009-05-07T12:45:00.000-04:002009-05-07T12:45:00.000-04:00I could not stop laughing at the visual of Fred Ja...I could not stop laughing at the visual of Fred Jacobs breaking down in tears because you know that isn't that far from the truth. I am sure Fred is taking it badly. He found a real sucker in Rehr and fed him the same crap he feeds his clients and gets away with.<br /><br />Fred will try to make nice with anyone who comes on board but I don't think he will have the free pass he was granted from David Rehr.<br /><br />Sorry, Freddie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-26577227073595021172009-05-07T12:41:00.000-04:002009-05-07T12:41:00.000-04:00I cannot see the NAB changing. It's made up of mo...I cannot see the NAB changing. It's made up of mostly older men who refuse to accept change. Even with an Obama presidency I expect we will have the same old people running the NAB into the ground for both radio and television. <br /><br />The old line media people do not understand or choose to accept change and the world has changed and left them behind.<br /><br />Maybe when credit gets moving again and the fire sales begin. Until then I think we will be stuck with the sos/dd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2639893053950014759.post-35568801921989537822009-05-07T12:08:00.000-04:002009-05-07T12:08:00.000-04:00Whoever it is that replaces Rehr should be well ve...Whoever it is that replaces Rehr should be well versed in new media, the current political scene, and be able to stand ground with the old line, hard core radio owners that refuse to accept that their way of running radio isn't working.<br /><br />Give us someone with the intelligence to lead.<br /><br />The last three and a half years were a nightmare. I'm not one to say Fritz was any better. These are different times. We need a healer not a divider.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com